On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a statute dating back to 1798, to target Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The administration argued that the gang’s activities constituted an “invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States, justifying the rapid detention and removal of affected individuals without the usual court proceedings.

Historically, the Alien Enemies Act has only been used during declared wars, such as the War of 1812 and the two World Wars, to detain or remove nationals of enemy states. Trump’s move marked the first time the law was invoked in a non-war context, and specifically against alleged gang members, rather than agents of a hostile nation at war with the U.S..

Judge Rodriguez’s 36-page opinion found that the administration’s use of the AEA was “contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.” He concluded that, while the president has broad authority under the AEA during wartime, the statute’s language requires either a declared war or an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” by a foreign nation or government-not by a criminal gang.

The court determined that the activities of Tren de Aragua, as described in the presidential proclamation, did not amount to an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” as those terms were understood in the 18th century. Judge Rodriguez cited historical definitions and context, noting that these terms referred to organized, armed military actions, not criminal activity by non-state actors.

The judge also rejected the administration’s claim that courts lacked authority to review the president’s invocation of the AEA, affirming the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret the scope of congressional statutes and ensure executive actions remain within legal boundaries.

The ruling applies specifically to Venezuelan migrants detained or residing in the Southern District of Texas, which includes major cities such as Houston, Brownsville, and Laredo. The permanent injunction prohibits the federal government from detaining, transferring, or removing Venezuelans under the AEA within this jurisdiction.

However, Judge Rodriguez clarified that his decision does not prevent the government from pursuing deportations under other immigration laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act, nor does it affect ongoing removal proceedings unrelated to the AEA.

Legal experts anticipate a swift appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the issue may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Use of Alien Enemies Act to Deport Venezuelans from South Texas first appeared on SJO Daily.

Senate Bill 191, sponsored by Senator Julie Morrison (D–Deerfield), mandates that every designated seating position in any newly purchased school bus have a combination pelvic and upper torso seat safety belt system-commonly known as a three-point, or lap-and-shoulder, seat belt-beginning July 1, 2031. The bill does not require school districts, private schools, or bus contractors to ensure students use the seat belts, nor does it obligate drivers or aides to instruct students on their proper use. The law will apply only to newly purchased buses and not to those leased or registered out of state.

The push for the legislation intensified after a school bus crash in Morrison’s district, which raised concerns among parents about the lack of seat belts on school buses. Senator Morrison emphasized that the bill is about prioritizing children’s safety.

The advocacy effort was further propelled by Kimberly Loughlin, a curriculum designer and certified child passenger safety technician, whose son experienced two separate school bus crashes in vehicles lacking seat belts. Her experience, along with support from safety experts and organizations, shaped the bill’s language.

The bill passed the Senate on a 39-13 partisan vote and now moves to the House for further consideration. Some Republican lawmakers voiced concerns, arguing that seat belts could be misused as weapons or hinder children’s ability to escape in emergencies. 

If enacted, Illinois would become the seventh state to require three-point seat belts on school buses, joining Arkansas, California, Iowa, Nevada, New Jersey, and Texas. Safety advocates and national organizations, including the National Safety Council and the National Transportation Safety Board, have long recommended such measures, citing data that lap-and-shoulder belts reduce injuries, improve passenger behavior, and aid in emergency evacuations.

The bill now heads to the Illinois House of Representatives for further debate and possible amendments. 

The post Illinois Senate Advances Bill to Require Seat Belts on All New School Buses first appeared on SJO Daily.

President Donald Trump marked the 100^th day of his second term on Tuesday as Gov. JB Pritzker has spent the week calling on Americans to pressure congressional Republicans to oppose Trump’s agenda and highlighting how Trump’s policies affect Illinois.

“I’m deeply concerned about what the next 100 days, and frankly, the next 1,000 days will be like,” Pritzker said Tuesday night during a virtual town hall.

Pritzker appeared on the progressive MeidasTouch podcast’s live town hall alongside three other Democratic governors: Kathy Hochul, of New York, Maura Healey, of Massachusetts, and Tim Walz, of Minnesota — the unsuccessful 2024 vice presidential nominee.

Throughout the town hall, the second-term Illinois governor continued calling for Americans to make their voices heard against what he perceives as a destructive Trump administration.

“I believe that we all ought to be mobilizing,” Pritzker told a Florida resident. “It’s the best way for us to get across what we really believe is that, you know, show up at your Republican congressman’s office and let them know: Quit shutting down veteran services, quit taking away Social Security and Medicaid.”

But for Democrats to be successful in future election cycles, the party must deliver results on voters’ priorities, Pritzker said. In addition to explaining a “simple message” about the party’s values to voters, Democrats should also embrace alternative media interviews to reach new voters, he said, pointing to a string of podcasts Walz appeared on during last year’s vice-presidential campaign.

“He was everywhere,” Pritzker said. “We’ve got to do that, all of us, and make sure that the Democratic message of standing up for working families is heard everywhere and directly to people who are online.”

Pritzker’s live podcast appearance Tuesday came two days after he delivered blistering criticism of unnamed people in his party for using podcasts and media interviews to chastise other Democrats.

“What I find ironic about the current conversation surrounding our party is that the voices flocking to podcasts and cable news shows to admonish fellow Democrats for not caring enough about the struggles of working families are the same ones who, when it comes to relieving the struggles of real people, have been timid, not bold,” Pritzker told a fundraiser for the New Hampshire Democratic Party on Sunday.

Read more: Pritzker balances messaging as some Dems encourage party to avoid LGBTQ issues

New Hampshire has typically held the first presidential primary election, usually following the Iowa caucus.

Pritzker, who also appeared Monday on MSNBC, has been working himself into the national spotlight for months since Trump took over the White House in January. Appearances on trendy podcasts and prime time cable TV shows have become a regular part of the governor’s schedule.

Read more: Pritzker positions himself are forefront of Trump opposition by invoking Nazis’ rise to power | Pritzker emerging as one of Trump’s most vocal critics

Pritzker received national attention after he warned of similarities between Nazi Germany and the Trump administration in his February State of the State address. His remarks in New Hampshire on Sunday drew more attention as headlines in publications including The New York Times declared the speech “stokes 2028 talks.”

Pritzker downplayed any links between the speech and his personal ambitions, saying he’s only trying to send a message to the party about what the platform for 2026 should be while defending Illinois against the Trump administration’s policies.

“I was surprised that so many people covered that,” Pritzker told reporters in Chicago on Monday.

The speech also struck a nerve with Republicans as Pritzker suggested Democrats “will never join so many Republicans in the special place in hell reserved for quislings and cowards.”

“Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption,” Pritzker said Sunday. “But I am now. These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They must understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box and then punish them at the ballot box.”

Pritzker first called on Democrats to become “street fighters” and engage in mass protest at a Human Rights Campaign dinner in March in Los Angelas.

The Illinois Republican Party cried foul in a news release titled “Pritzker calls for violence against Republicans.”

“His comments if nothing else could be construed as inciting violence,” Trump deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said.

Pritzker scoffed at Miller’s criticism, saying he didn’t listen to the speech.

“Peaceful protest is what I’m talking about. It’s about standing up, speaking out,” Pritzker told reporters. “Again, using your megaphone, your microphone, whatever you’ve got. And the peace that I’m talking about is making sure that they know at all times that the American public opposes the policies of Congressional Republicans and of the White House.”

Outside public appearances this week, Pritzker’s political organization also announced it was beginning a new video series highlighting Illinoisians who have been hurt by cuts to the federal government under Trump. And to mark Trump’s 100^th day in office, the governor’s office released a list of 100 ways “Trump and Republicans are hurting Illinois.”

Responding to a Chicago voter’s concerns about affordable housing during Tuesday night’s town hall, Pritzker rattled off legislation and state spending increases approved under his administration as a way he’s trying to help. But he also argued it’s ultimately going to be challenging to address such concerns with Trump as president.

“Donald Trump is making everything harder,” Pritzker said. “Housing, rent, being able to borrow money to buy your first home, or any home, and that’s something that we’re all going to have to live with until we’re able to overturn the Congress.”

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

This article first appeared on Capitol News Illinois and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The post Trump’s 100 days: Pritzker calls for mass mobilization as he grows his national profile first appeared on SJO Daily.

The executive order, signed April 23, 2025, directs federal agencies to eliminate or deprioritize enforcement of “disparate-impact liability”-a legal standard that allows the government to challenge policies that disproportionately harm protected groups, even without explicit discriminatory intent. This principle has been vital in enforcing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Fair Housing Act, and other civil rights laws, helping women, Black Americans, and others secure fair access to credit, housing, and employment.

Disparate-impact liability is a legal theory that allows for claims of discrimination when a neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects members of a protected group, even without evidence of discriminatory intent. It has been used for decades to challenge practices in hiring, housing, education, and lending that result in statistical disparities among racial, gender, or other protected groups.

The Trump administration argues that disparate-impact liability forces employers and institutions to consider race and engage in “racial balancing” to avoid legal exposure, thereby undermining meritocracy and the principle of treating individuals as individuals, not as representatives of a group.

The order sets in motion a process for reviewing and amending federal regulations, with agencies required to report on steps taken to eliminate disparate-impact liability. While the executive order does not itself change existing laws-such as the Civil Rights Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act-its implementation could reshape how those laws are enforced at the federal level.

• Women: The rollback of disparate-impact enforcement could lead to increased barriers to credit, business loans, and mortgages for women, especially single mothers and women of color, threatening their financial autonomy and independence.
• Black Americans: Black men and women, who have historically faced redlining, loan denials, and predatory lending, could see diminished government efforts to ensure equal access to credit, housing, and employment opportunities. The loss of federal backing may also reduce the ability to identify and address systemic discrimination.
• People with Disabilities: Project 2025 proposes deep cuts to Medicaid and housing support, and would end the use of disparate-impact theory in enforcing the Fair Housing Act. This would make it harder for people with disabilities to challenge discriminatory practices, access affordable housing, and live independently in the community.
• Other Marginalized Groups: The executive order and Project 2025 also threaten protections for other groups, including older adults, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals, by deprioritizing enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes across federal programs.

The post Trump Signs Order to Roll Back Disparate-Impact Protections, Putting Financial Independence of Marginalized Americans at Risk first appeared on SJO Daily.

Barber was joined by two others-Rev. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and Steve Swayne, director of the St. Francis Springs Prayer Center-when authorities detained them for engaging in a prayer protest opposing Republican-led federal budget cuts that threaten programs such as Medicaid and Social Security.

The group had gathered to deliver a moral message against what they described as “immoral budget cuts” that would adversely impact poor and working-class Americans, children, women, and families. Earlier that day, Barber had preached a “Moral Monday” sermon on the Capitol steps and addressed an interfaith gathering at the U.S. Supreme Court. The prayer protest escalated from quiet prayer to praying aloud, at which point Capitol Police issued multiple warnings to cease or face arrest. When the warnings were not heeded, the three were handcuffed and charged with “crowding, obstructing, and incommoding,” violations related to unauthorized demonstrations inside congressional buildings.

“To think that we went in to pray – pray against the budget, but to pray nonetheless – and the order now is that, evidently, if you pray, you are seen as violating the rules of the Rotunda,” Barber told RNS. “What we hope is that folks will see this and it will begin to remove some of the fear, and people will understand that this is the time – now – that we must engage in nonviolent direct action to register our discontent.”

Recently, the Trump administration announced a task force aimed at investigating alleged anti-Christian bias in federal agencies. Republicans nationwide are also calling for prayer within schools.

Barber has been a long-standing progressive advocate, leading the Poor People’s Campaign and the Moral Monday movement, which have challenged policies from a moral and social justice perspective, even during the Biden administration.

Capitol Police emphasized that demonstrations inside the Capitol are strictly prohibited in any form, including sitting, kneeling, group praying, singing, or chanting. They noted that there are designated areas on Capitol grounds where such activities are allowed. Reporters covering the prayer protest were also warned to leave the Rotunda or face arrest.

In March 2023, evangelical worship leader and activist Sean Feucht led a high-profile worship service inside the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. The event, which took place in the evening after most of the building had cleared out, drew a small group of conservative lawmakers and their aides, including Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), who knelt in prayer with arms outstretched as Feucht sang. Other Republican representatives present included Barry Moore (Ala.), Josh Brecheen (Okla.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Michael Cloud (Texas), Tracey Mann (Kan.), and Doug LaMalfa (Calif.).

Feucht promoted the gathering as a mobilization of an army of prayer warriors, but attendance was limited to a handful of legislators and staffers. The event was notable for its overt Christian nationalist messaging, with Feucht and his allies advocating for a vision of America where Christians are making the laws.

The post Rev. William Barber Arrested for Praying in Capitol as GOP-Led Worship Event Faced No Repercussions first appeared on SJO Daily.

Trump has long maintained that tariffs are a tax paid by other countries, but economists widely agree that the burden typically falls on American consumers, who pay higher prices at checkout. If Amazon were to show a line item detailing the tariff’s impact on each purchase, it would make clear to shoppers exactly how much of the price increase stems from these tariffs, contradicting the administration’s narrative.

The controversy began when Punchbowl News reported that Amazon planned to show shoppers how much of an item’s price was attributable to new U.S. tariffs-particularly those targeting Chinese imports, which now face duties as high as 145% under Trump’s latest measures. The move, if implemented, would have provided American consumers with unprecedented transparency about the impact of tariffs on everyday goods.

More than 70% of the products sold on Amazon are produced in China.

Amazon quickly issued statements denying that it ever planned to implement such a pricing disclosure on its main marketplace. Company spokespersons clarified that the idea was only briefly considered for Amazon Haul, a budget-focused storefront launched to compete with low-cost platforms like Shein and Temu, but was never approved or seriously contemplated for the broader Amazon.com site.

Despite the clarification, the initial reports and White House criticism triggered a 2% drop in Amazon’s share price in premarket trading.

Regardless of whether Amazon itemizes tariff costs, American consumers will likely feel the impact through higher prices.

American consumers can expect to see increased prices from tariffs in stores as soon as late May or early June, according to supply chain experts and former Trump administration officials. Many retailers anticipated the impact of the new tariffs and rushed to stock up on inventory before the higher duties took effect, providing a temporary buffer against immediate price hikes and shortages.

However, this preemptive inventory build-up is only expected to last for several weeks. As these stockpiles are depleted and shipments from China decline-shipments to the West Coast are projected to drop by as much as 35%, retailers will face higher costs on new imports, which will likely be passed on to consumers through higher prices and reduced product variety. The reduction in shipments and uncertainty over future trade policy have already led companies to cancel or delay new orders.

Some retailers have begun displaying tariffs as a separate line item on their checkout screens.

The post White House Slams Amazon Over Reported Plan to Show Tariff Costs on Prices, Denies Transparency Push first appeared on SJO Daily.

The decline was driven primarily by a sharp deterioration in consumers’ expectations for the future. The Expectations Index, which gauges consumers’ short-term outlook for income, business, and labor market conditions, plunged 12.5 points to 54.4-its lowest level since October 2011 and well below the threshold of 80 that typically signals a recession ahead.

“The decline was largely driven by consumers’ expectations. The three expectation components—business conditions, employment prospects, and future income—all deteriorated sharply, reflecting pervasive pessimism about the future,” said Stephanie Guichard, Senior Economist, Global Indicators at The Conference Board. “Notably, the share of consumers expecting fewer jobs in the next six months (32.1%) was nearly as high as in April 2009, in the middle of the Great Recession. In addition, expectations about future income prospects turned clearly negative for the first time in five years, suggesting that concerns about the economy have now spread to consumers worrying about their own personal situations. However, consumers’ views of the present have held up, containing the overall decline in the Index.”

While consumers’ assessment of current business conditions remained relatively positive, their views on the labor market weakened in April. The Present Situation Index edged down by 0.9 points to 133.5. This resilience in current conditions helped contain the overall decline in the headline index, but the sharp drop in expectations signals growing concern about the road ahead.

April’s plunge in confidence was broad-based, affecting all age groups and most income brackets. The steepest declines were recorded among consumers aged 35 to 55 and those in households earning more than $125,000 annually. The drop in confidence was also consistent across political affiliations.

Consumers cited tariffs as a top concern, with mentions reaching an all-time high in April. Many respondents explicitly linked tariffs to rising prices and negative economic impacts. Inflation and high prices remained central to consumer worries, though some noted declines in gas and food prices. Additionally, heightened financial market volatility pushed nearly half of respondents (48.5%) to expect stock prices to decline over the next year-the highest share since October 2011. Average 12-month inflation expectations climbed to 7%, the highest since November 2022.

The proportion of consumers anticipating a recession in the next 12 months rose to a two-year high. Purchasing plans for homes, cars, and vacations declined on a six-month moving average basis, and intentions to buy big-ticket items such as appliances and electronics also pulled back in April. Notably, plans to spend more on dining out registered one of the largest month-on-month declines on record.

The post US Consumer Confidence Plunges to Five-Year Low Amid Economic Uncertainty first appeared on SJO Daily.

The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, launched in 2022, was designed as a universal, easy-to-remember number for individuals in mental health crisis-similar to 911 for emergencies. Since its inception, the hotline has featured specialized options for high-risk groups, including veterans and LGBTQ+ youth. Callers could press “3” to connect with counselors trained specifically to address the unique challenges faced by LGBTQ+ young people.

The cuts will only affect the sub-line specifically for LBGTQ+ youth. 

Other components of the 988 Lifeline, such as the general crisis support, the Veterans Crisis Line (press “1”), and Spanish-language services (press “2”), are not included in the proposed cuts. 

According to federal data, the LGBTQ+ subnetwork has handled over 1.2 million calls, texts, and chats since its launch, with an average of more than 2,000 contacts per day in recent months. Mental health experts note that LGBTQ+ youth are over four times more likely to attempt suicide than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, making access to culturally competent crisis support a critical lifeline.

The budget proposal, first reported last week, would end all federal funding for the LGBTQ+ youth specialized services within the 988 Lifeline as of October 1, 2025, if approved by Congress. The move is part of broader discretionary budget cuts for mental health services under the Trump administration.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 14 and the third leading cause for those ages 15 to 24. LGBTQ+ young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers. The Trevor Project estimates that over 1.8 million LGBTQ+ youth in the United States seriously consider suicide each year, with at least one LGBTQ+ young person attempting suicide every 45 seconds.

“Suicide prevention is about risk, not identity. Ending the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens – it will put their lives at risk,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project. “These programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.”

“To end suicide in this country, we need more resources – not fewer. We urge the Administration to maintain its long-standing commitment to ending suicide among high-risk populations, especially our nation’s young people. We urge Congress to defend its establishment of this data-based, bipartisan program to allow its life-saving services to continue for generations to come. We do not have to agree on every policy issue to agree that every young life is worth saving.”

The post Leaked Budget Proposal Would Eliminate 988 Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Suicide Prevention Services first appeared on SJO Daily.

The executive order directs the Attorney General to create a new mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification for law enforcement officers who face legal expenses or liabilities stemming from their official duties. This includes establishing partnerships with private-sector law firms to offer pro bono legal assistance to officers accused of wrongdoing in the line of duty.

Current research does not provide strong evidence that police need military-style “protection” to reduce crime or enhance officer safety. Two independent peer-reviewed studies published in the journal Nature of Human Behaviour found that billions of dollars in surplus military equipment transferred to U.S. police departments did not reduce crime or increase officer safety. 

The order also mandates a broad increase in federal support for law enforcement, instructing agencies to:

• Maximize the use of federal resources to improve officer training, pay, and benefits
• Strengthen and expand legal protections for officers
• Seek tougher sentences for crimes committed against law enforcement personnel
• Invest in the security and capacity of prisons
• Improve the collection and uniformity of crime data across jurisdictions

Additionally, the order calls for a review and potential rollback of federal consent decrees and other oversight measures that the administration says may “unduly impede” law enforcement operations.

A particularly controversial provision instructs the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense to increase the transfer of surplus military and national security assets-such as armored vehicles and tactical gear-to local police departments within 90 days. The order also tasks the Secretary of Defense with determining how military training and non-lethal capabilities can be used to prevent crime at the local level.

The executive order empowers the Department of Justice to pursue legal action against state and local officials who, in the administration’s view, obstruct law enforcement or unlawfully restrict police activities, including through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives that are seen as limiting police effectiveness. The order directs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecution of any federal criminal law violations by such officials.

The adoption of military equipment and tactics can blur the distinction between civilian law enforcement and the military, raising concerns about the appropriate role of police in a democratic society. A core ethical concern is that militarization shifts the foundational view of policing: instead of seeing citizens as community members to be protected, police may begin to presume the public as potential threats. This undermines the liberal democratic order, which is based on trust between the state and its citizens, and can fundamentally alter the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Militarized police forces,equipped with military-grade weapons, vehicles, and attire,can appear as occupying armies rather than public servants. The use of military tactics and equipment in routine policing and protest responses raises significant constitutional concerns. Militarized policing can chill the exercise of First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, when officers use excessive force, intimidation, or crowd-control weapons against peaceful demonstrators. 

The executive order does not formally declare martial law, but critics and analysts argue it creates conditions that could facilitate a de facto militarized policing environment.

Historically, such transfers under programs like the Pentagon’s 1033 initiative have been linked to increased use of aggressive tactics during protests and routine policing and escalated violence in police-civilian interactions, even in non-emergency situations.

The directive tasks the Secretary of Defense with assessing how military training and non-lethal capabilities can deter crime. Critics warn this blurs the line between military and police roles, a hallmark of martial law scenarios.

While not explicitly mentioned in the order, Trump has previously sought to evaluate the Insurrection Act, which allows presidents to deploy the military domestically during civil unrest. Combined with militarized police, this could enable a layered approach to suppressing dissent.

The Trump administration has sent a clear message that dissent will not be tolerated. For example, President Trump has issued formal proclamations calling for federal investigations into individuals perceived as adversaries, threatened law firms representing his opponents, and taken actions such as deporting student demonstrators. 

The post Trump Signs Sweeping Executive Order to Expand Police Powers, Legal Shields, and Military-Style Support Amid Civil Liberties Concerns first appeared on SJO Daily.

At the heart of the case was the interpretation of which patients are considered “entitled to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits” for purposes of the Medicare payment formula. HHS argued that only patients who were eligible to receive a cash SSI payment during the month they were hospitalized should be counted. More than 200 hospitals, the plaintiffs, contended that all patients enrolled in the SSI program at the time of hospitalization, including those not receiving a cash payment that month, should be included.

The hospitals argued that the narrower HHS approach undercounted their low-income patient population, costing them an estimated $1.5 billion annually in lost federal funding. They maintained that SSI eligibility should encompass both cash and non-cash benefits, such as continued Medicaid coverage and vocational rehabilitation, and that eligibility should not be limited to a single month.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that SSI benefits are strictly cash payments, and eligibility for those benefits is determined on a monthly basis. Therefore, only patients who are eligible for a cash SSI payment during the month of their hospitalization are counted in the DSH formula. The Court emphasized that Congress prescribed a specific formula for these calculations and that the judiciary must respect the statutory language, even if it leads to less generous payments for hospitals serving low-income populations.

The majority rejected the hospitals’ broader interpretation, noting that non-cash benefits and continued Medicaid coverage are not SSI benefits under the relevant statute and that eligibility for SSI is inherently a month-to-month determination.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, warning that the decision would deprive hospitals serving the neediest among us of critical federal funds that Congress plainly attempted to provide. The dissent argued that Congress intended the formula to capture all patients enrolled in SSI, not just those receiving a payment in a particular month, and criticized the majority for what it called a misreading of the statutory purpose.

The dispute dates back to 2017, when the hospitals first challenged HHS’s methodology for calculating DSH payments. Lower courts consistently sided with the government, and the Supreme Court’s decision affirms those rulings. The outcome is expected to have a significant financial impact, with estimates suggesting at least $1 billion in federal funding each year is at stake for hospitals nationwide.

The post Supreme Court Rules on Hospital Payments for Low-Income Medicare Patients first appeared on SJO Daily.